- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:01:08 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:43 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> the rdf: and rdfs: vocabularies are not intended to be used
> 'contextually' (eg they dont change with time and should be resistant
> to subjective re-interpretation)
Is that really true?
:SanFrancisco rdf:type :CityInCalifornia.
:CityInCalifornia rdfs:subClassOf :AmericanCity.
That seems like a fairly typical subclass relations, but it only became
true in 1850. There are current examples, too, of course. Is that an
error in modeling? If so, I suspect it's a very common one.
The problem I'm having with this current discussion (which I think is
headed in the right direction, to a point) is that I can think of
reasons why pretty much *any* RDF triple might reasonably change over
time. By default, despite the RDF semantics, nearly every graph on the
Web probably is in a different time-context, so people merging graphs
really do need metadata before they can do a truth-preserving merge.
Quads are then a way to manage that metadata, I think.
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:01:17 UTC